Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolphus WC

The nature of God can't be diminished and is Eternal. That is how Jesus can be True God and True man. Becoming man didn't diminish God.

The things I don't understand are:

How can God sacrifice anything? He can't give up anything because He can't be diminished. You have to give something up to sacrifice.

Also since God is Eternal - Jesus was always True God and True Man so there is no sacrifice in incarnating. He was always incarnate. He was Man before He created Man.

Excellent points, my friend! Please consider the following concepts:
How can God sacrifice anything?
1. Jesus can initially do anything because He has free will. He has all-power. Since He chose to bring men to freely love as He loves and promises to us that He will not change from this goal, He has essentially sacrificed all-power.
2. The sacrifice is also revealed in the paradox of: Since God caused creation, and will never choose to destroy His creation, does this mean He cannot destroy it, therefore does not have all-power? Both yes and no are valid. He can destroy it, but He won't. He cannot destroy it, because He is sacrificing all-power for the sake of Love.

Regarding Incarnation
Incarnation can be defined by dictionary.com as the assumption of human nature. Though God is True Human, God is not true human nature. He is assumed human nature. The difference between Godly nature and human nature can be found in the greatest commandments, because if God is asking us to perfect living according to these commandments, He must be perfect at them. The Godly Nature or the Greatest Commandments can be defined as: Always be and spread the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the unbreakable peace and happiness of all your relationships and self. Therefore, acting outside of this in any form is human nature.
Essentially, Jesus had to pretend to be angered in the temple (ie. assumed human nature) in order to fulfill the requirement of allowing us to freely choose to follow Him.

Thoughts?

__________________
My intentions for sharing these understandings is to grow myself and others closer to God - The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and Catholicism, AND to subject these reflections to harsh criticisms regarding alignment with Catholicism, for it is the Truth.

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jochoa

Excellent points, my friend! Please consider the following concepts:
How can God sacrifice anything?
1. Jesus can initially do anything because He has free will. He has all-power. Since He chose to bring men to freely love as He loves and promises to us that He will not change from this goal, He has essentially sacrificed all-power.
2. The sacrifice is also revealed in the paradox of: Since God caused creation, and will never choose to destroy His creation, does this mean He cannot destroy it, therefore does not have all-power? Both yes and no are valid. He can destroy it, but He won't. He cannot destroy it, because He is sacrificing all-power for the sake of Love.

Regarding Incarnation
Incarnation can be defined by dictionary.com as the assumption of human nature. Though God is True Human, God is not true human nature. He is assumed human nature. The difference between Godly nature and human nature can be found in the greatest commandments, because if God is asking us to perfect living according to these commandments, He must be perfect at them. The Godly Nature or the Greatest Commandments can be defined as: Always be and spread the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the unbreakable peace and happiness of all your relationships and self. Therefore, acting outside of this in any form is human nature.
Essentially, Jesus had to pretend to be angered in the temple (ie. assumed human nature) in order to fulfill the requirement of allowing us to freely choose to follow Him.

Thoughts?

If the United States chooses not to use a nuclear weapon it doesn't mean we cease to have them. We still have the power. Just not using it.

To sacrifice you have to give something up. If the USA destroyed our nuclear weapons we would be sacrificing the nuclear option. Something would be lost forever.

God can't be diminished. If God has 5 apples and gives you 2 God still has 5 apples. Nothing is lost.

He will destroy His creation according to Apocalypse.

You are misrepresenting Catholic theology. Jesus is True God and True Man, not just God in a man suit.

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Gaber,

This is quite a response. Let's see what you've told me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaber

I do understand the difference between doctrine dogma and the embellishment of liturgy, else I would not have got highest marks all those years in catechism and later in RC theology.

OK... so you got good grades...

Quote:

And my case has been made many times by more learned than me, and you won't accept it no matter what I or anyone puts before you because you are not yet ready to do so.

And you're more intellectually advanced than me (since I'm "not ready" to "accept" a case that you were apparently ready to accept)...

Quote:

And that may never happen

And I may be intrinsically less capable than you...

Quote:

The whole idea is to see how deftly we accept what we grow up with and don't deeply question.

And, not only do I not "deeply question", I'm not "deft" enough to recognize my lack of deep questioning!

Quote:

And there is nothing wrong with that unless you get stuck at one stage of the story unnecessarily.

And there's something "wrong" with me because I'm "unnecessarily" "stuck".

Umm... are you for real? Your whole defense boils down to: "I believe things (vague hand waving) and since you're not ready to handle them, I don't need to justify them to you; maybe someday, you'll be able to be able to handle addressing the question."

Seriously?

Perhaps you'll be deft enough, someday, to recognize that it's possible to "deeply question" issues and still disagree with "those more learned" in a way that's valid and able to be explained more eloquently than "I just don't buy it"...

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolphus WC

God can't be diminished. If God has 5 apples and gives you 2 God still has 5 apples. Nothing is lost.

Please consider the following: I try to find the perspectives which validate the paradoxes of Faith. In consideration of your example, you are referring to God as the Father, which is valid. However, if you consider the perspective of God as the Son, you will get the following: If Jesus is wearing 1 cloak, and we take it away from Him, He has been stripped of His garment, and therefore has no cloak while on the cross.
Another concept to consider: Since Jesus is God, God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, therefore as the Son Catholicism knows: The Father is All-Knowing, and the Son does not know everything because Matthew 24:36. Which means as the Son, He gave up all-knowledge, as well as all-power.
Now back to the question: How can God sacrifice anything? Try to consider His perspective: If you were all alone with absolutely nothing else in existence (consider yourself as the single-celled being you initially came into existence as), and the only way to create something is to think of it in full detail. Now set your goal as wanting to experience a limitless happiness without anyone ever losing any peace. How do you make that happen?

Quote:

He will destroy His creation according to Apocalypse.

Please consider the following concept:
Once again, you are correct in that there must exist a perspective which validates that God will destroy His creation, but at the same time, since Catholicism knows "World without end," the destruction must not be of God's creation, the world. So the question becomes what creation will be destroyed?
The title of the book is: "The Apocalypse of Saint John" (DRB)
Apocalypse, as defined by Google, is: An event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale.
Therefore, the title can be understood as: "The Awesome Destruction of God's creation, Saint John"
The first statement of the book is: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ..."
Revelation, as defined by Google, is: The making known of a secret or the unknown.
Therefore, the question becomes how does the destruction of Saint John make known the secrets of Jesus Christ?
Please consider the following:
Catholicism knows God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Catholicism knows God has written His Laws on every person's heart.
Therefore, inside every person there is the Holy Spirit. However, since none of us are perfect, there is also the unholy spirit inside each of us. To understand the Holy Spirit in each of us, recognize that a spirit that is united with the Spirit of God is Holy. Just as a spirit that is not united with the Spirit of God is unholy. When we are living out of unity with the Spirit of God, our unholy spirit is a distinct person. When we are living in unity with the Spirit of God, our Holy Spirit is a distinct person.
Therefore, the title can be interpreted as referring to the destruction of the unholy spirit/person within John for the life of the Holy Spirit/person within John, which in turn reveals the unknown facts of Jesus Christ to John.

Quote:

You are misrepresenting Catholic theology. Jesus is True God and True Man, not just God in a man suit.

Please consider a couple of concepts:
I am stating that Jesus is True God and True Man. And although essentially He had to pretend to be angered in the temple (ie. assumed human nature) in order to fulfill the requirement of allowing us to freely choose to follow Him, He was genuinely angry when He did it.
Also, can you please tell me where and why you perceive me as misrepresenting Catholic Theology?

Thank you very much, my friend, for your time and consideration. I look forward to further discussion.

Thoughts?

__________________
My intentions for sharing these understandings is to grow myself and others closer to God - The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and Catholicism, AND to subject these reflections to harsh criticisms regarding alignment with Catholicism, for it is the Truth.

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jochoa

Please consider the following: I try to find the perspectives which validate the paradoxes of Faith. In consideration of your example, you are referring to God as the Father, which is valid. However, if you consider the perspective of God as the Son, you will get the following: If Jesus is wearing 1 cloak, and we take it away from Him, He has been stripped of His garment, and therefore has no cloak while on the cross.
Another concept to consider: Since Jesus is God, God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, therefore as the Son Catholicism knows: The Father is All-Knowing, and the Son does not know everything because Matthew 24:36. Which means as the Son, He gave up all-knowledge, as well as all-power.
Now back to the question: How can God sacrifice anything? Try to consider His perspective: If you were all alone with absolutely nothing else in existence (consider yourself as the single-celled being you initially came into existence as), and the only way to create something is to think of it in full detail. Now set your goal as wanting to experience a limitless happiness without anyone ever losing any peace. How do you make that happen?

Please consider the following concept:
Once again, you are correct in that there must exist a perspective which validates that God will destroy His creation, but at the same time, since Catholicism knows "World without end," the destruction must not be of God's creation, the world. So the question becomes what creation will be destroyed?
The title of the book is: "The Apocalypse of Saint John" (DRB)
Apocalypse, as defined by Google, is: An event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale.
Therefore, the title can be understood as: "The Awesome Destruction of God's creation, Saint John"
The first statement of the book is: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ..."
Revelation, as defined by Google, is: The making known of a secret or the unknown.
Therefore, the question becomes how does the destruction of Saint John make known the secrets of Jesus Christ?
Please consider the following:
Catholicism knows God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Catholicism knows God has written His Laws on every person's heart.
Therefore, inside every person there is the Holy Spirit. However, since none of us are perfect, there is also the unholy spirit inside each of us. To understand the Holy Spirit in each of us, recognize that a spirit that is united with the Spirit of God is Holy. Just as a spirit that is not united with the Spirit of God is unholy. When we are living out of unity with the Spirit of God, our unholy spirit is a distinct person. When we are living in unity with the Spirit of God, our Holy Spirit is a distinct person.
Therefore, the title can be interpreted as referring to the destruction of the unholy spirit/person within John for the life of the Holy Spirit/person within John, which in turn reveals the unknown facts of Jesus Christ to John.

Please consider a couple of concepts:
I am stating that Jesus is True God and True Man. And although essentially He had to pretend to be angered in the temple (ie. assumed human nature) in order to fulfill the requirement of allowing us to freely choose to follow Him, He was genuinely angry when He did it.
Also, can you please tell me where and why you perceive me as misrepresenting Catholic Theology?

Thank you very much, my friend, for your time and consideration. I look forward to further discussion.

We are of one spirit, not 2. God does destroy the world. I'm not sure what your point is.

You are misrepresenting Catholic teaching in saying that Jesus had to pretend to be angry. As humans we get angry and have other emotions. It is part of being Human. If Jesus had to pretend to have emotions then He wasn't fully human.

So to go back to Jesus' sacrifice - God can't be diminished. To Sacrifice one needs to give up something. How can God loose part of Himself if He can't be diminished?

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorgias

Gaber,

~~~

Umm... are you for real? Your whole defense boils down to: "I believe things (vague hand waving) and since you're not ready to handle them, I don't need to justify them to you; maybe someday, you'll be able to be able to handle addressing the question."

Seriously?

It's not about whether or not I'm personally for real. And I'm sorry that you took all that so personally, as it simply has to do with how we get from A to Z, not where you and I might relatively be in a particular dimension of experience. You may well be, and probably are, far more accomplished than I in some area. You might be at universityu or doctorate level to something I'm in kindergarten about.

And it is not a defense. I have nothing to defend. I'm doing mostly reportage here.

Quote:

Perhaps you'll be deft enough, someday, to recognize that it's possible to "deeply question" issues and still disagree with "those more learned" in a way that's valid and able to be explained more eloquently than "I just don't buy it"...

Blessings,

G.

Idon't, and my reasons were stated: cultural restrictions. You have equall acess to what those were as I do. You might come to different conclusions because of how youo see yourself, and that is OK. But that might change. When it does, and you are not so personally reactive, there may be some very interesting things we could talk about. But right now, from your contributions, I'd say this is not the time. That's not a "no," its a "we'll talk later."

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaber

Idon't, and my reasons were stated: cultural restrictions. You have equall acess to what those were as I do. You might come to different conclusions because of how youo see yourself, and that is OK. But that might change. When it does, and you are not so personally reactive, there may be some very interesting things we could talk about. But right now, from your contributions, I'd say this is not the time. That's not a "no," its a "we'll talk later."

However, you had originally asked a question that seemed premised on the notion that the way that the Church did things in the 1st century A.D. takes precedence over how it does in any other time; that is, that if it does things differently, it's necessary to provide a justification for its actions. My answer, to boil it down, is "it was given the authority to do so." If that's too direct or dogmatic an answer for you, I can see how you might want to deflect it.

Can I enter into a discussion of the relative merits of the development of liturgy? Of course.

I thought your one response was interesting, though: am I characterizing you correctly when I say that it seems you believe that, when deeply questioning the Church, the only reasonable conclusion is one that proceeds from suspicion? That is, there's no opportunity to "deeply question" and then conclude that the Church is ok?

My friend, if the only perspective you want to consider is Jesus as God, the Father, then you are correct in that God cannot sacrifice anything. However, Catholicism knows Jesus is also God, the Son, as well as Jesus is also God, the Holy Spirit.
Catholicism also knows that God is the Holy Trinity or three distinct persons co-existing in one God.
Therefore, there are many perspectives to consider.
For example: The Saints, Martyrs, and Fathers giving their lives to spread the Word of God, are all sacrifices of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

We are of one spirit, not 2. God does destroy the world. I'm not sure what your point is.

Please consider the following:
1. What is the one spirit? Is being of one spirit, the same as being one with the spirit? Is being one with the spirit the same as being the spirit?
2. What is your understanding of destruction and world?

Quote:

You are misrepresenting Catholic teaching in saying that Jesus had to pretend to be angry. As humans we get angry and have other emotions. It is part of being Human. If Jesus had to pretend to have emotions then He wasn't fully human.

Please recognize: I am saying Jesus wants to experience and share the experience of a limitless happiness without anyone ever losing peace. Therefore, He has emotions. In order to do this, He had to think of a plan to bring other humans to freely choose to want to love as He loves. However, He is also perfect at being patient and kind for the sake of happiness without ever losing peace (this is evident in that from our perspective, He has waited patiently for 15 billion years). But in order to spread the ability to freely choose to want to do the same on a global level, when thinking of the plan, He had to assume He was angry to truly set us free to choose to follow Him. When He physically followed through with the plan, He genuinely was angry.
The concept is when you love someone, you must set them free to choose to love you. Jesus' Love is so Amazing that in His presence, no person can reject Him because He is the perfect servant of happiness and peace for all. In order to set us free on a global level to freely choose to Love as He Loves, so that He may also experience a limitless happiness, a more drastic measure is necessary.

Quote:

So to go back to Jesus' sacrifice - God can't be diminished. To Sacrifice one needs to give up something. How can God loose part of Himself if He can't be diminished?

You are correct: God, the Father, can't be diminished. What about God, the Son, or God, the Holy Spirit?

Thank you very much for the excellent food for thought! I am enjoying pondering your ideas and considerations.

Thoughts?

__________________
My intentions for sharing these understandings is to grow myself and others closer to God - The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and Catholicism, AND to subject these reflections to harsh criticisms regarding alignment with Catholicism, for it is the Truth.

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jochoa

My friend, if the only perspective you want to consider is Jesus as God, the Father, then you are correct in that God cannot sacrifice anything. However, Catholicism knows Jesus is also God, the Son, as well as Jesus is also God, the Holy Spirit.
Catholicism also knows that God is the Holy Trinity or three distinct persons co-existing in one God.
Therefore, there are many perspectives to consider.
For example: The Saints, Martyrs, and Fathers giving their lives to spread the Word of God, are all sacrifices of the Holy Spirit.

Please consider the following:
1. What is the one spirit? Is being of one spirit, the same as being one with the spirit? Is being one with the spirit the same as being the spirit?
2. What is your understanding of destruction and world?

Please recognize: I am saying Jesus wants to experience and share the experience of a limitless happiness without anyone ever losing peace. Therefore, He has emotions. In order to do this, He had to think of a plan to bring other humans to freely choose to want to love as He loves. However, He is also perfect at being patient and kind for the sake of happiness without ever losing peace (this is evident in that from our perspective, He has waited patiently for 15 billion years). But in order to spread the ability to freely choose to want to do the same on a global level, when thinking of the plan, He had to assume He was angry to truly set us free to choose to follow Him. When He physically followed through with the plan, He genuinely was angry.
The concept is when you love someone, you must set them free to choose to love you. Jesus' Love is so Amazing that in His presence, no person can reject Him because He is the perfect servant of happiness and peace for all. In order to set us free on a global level to freely choose to Love as He Loves, so that He may also experience a limitless happiness, a more drastic measure is necessary.

You are correct: God, the Father, can't be diminished. What about God, the Son, or God, the Holy Spirit?

Thank you very much for the excellent food for thought! I am enjoying pondering your ideas and considerations.

Thoughts?

You can't consider one person without considering the others. They are 3 they are 1.

How are they sacrifices of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit isn't lessened with each of their deaths.

You were saying we have a "good" spirit and a "bad" spirit. We don't. Just one. We can choose the path we take.

The world as we know it is obliterated. A new world takes it's place.

You are still focusing on Jesus as God. He is Truly Man then his emotions aren't faked. He was truly angry in the temple. Just as God the Father is wrathful.

People reject Jesus all the time. People who physically met Jesus rejected Jesus. They killed him remember?

I can't get on youtube right now, but I'm guessing that reference would be the famous one at the military trial. But again, it's not so much as it might seem, but that, for instance, though I like math and can do some, I'd not do well in a conversation about quadratic equations, or transforms, or some = thing tha has a bunch of Greel letters in it. I'm just not there. But some are, and very good for them! I wouln't have this keyboard under my fingers without those folks. But I do have a very good religious, metaphysucal, and comparative religion background over so many decades. I also have had a rather profound mystical experience which totally changed my understanding of what constitutes human awareness. It isn't what we ordinarily think it is, at least not in intellectual terms. So I base much, or all of what I say on that background.

Quote:

However, you had originally asked a question that seemed premised on the notion that the way that the Church did things in the 1st century A.D. takes precedence over how it does in any other time; that is, that if it does things differently, it's necessary to provide a justification for its actions. My answer, to boil it down, is "it was given the authority to do so." If that's too direct or dogmatic an answer for you, I can see how you might want to deflect it.

That wasn't quite my point. It was more along the lines that while we have precious little in terms of an account that has even within itself some historic discrepencies, it would appear that the Church has extrapolated a lot. And while there may have been "reason" to do so, I do not see that the teachings of Jesus were about the faculty of reason, but of love and the nature of awareness, particularly as to the relatinship of God and Mankiind and what we make of that, And from another perspective, all dur respect to the Church, even some of her own mystics have a slightly different take on that than does the average parishioner.

Quote:

Can I enter into a discussion of the relative merits of the development of liturgy? Of course.

Sure. The liturgy is lovely and meaningful to many, even simply as a ceremony. And that is fine to change as seems fit. I only intended to show that since some things change, the "Founder" not being with us as you and I might be in the same room, Presence not withstanding, other things might have changed as well, despite best intentions. Radio waves being equal and "true," a crystal set, if you know what that is, is rather different than a multiplexed radio. The same transimission might sound radically different on two sets. Someone listening to a crystal set all their life, on hearing the clarity of an FM broadcast might declare "But that is not the true radio! Someone who has been to a museum of radio history and a radio factory might have a different perception of that whole dynamic. that's all.

Quote:

I thought your one response was interesting, though: am I characterizing you correctly when I say that it seems you believe that, when deeply questioning the Church, the only reasonable conclusion is one that proceeds from suspicion? That is, there's no opportunity to "deeply question" and then conclude that the Church is ok?

Not at all. The human is naturally curious, and some make a business of it, and each in different kind and degree than another. Having had a number of "mystical" expereinces from an ealy age, I have always been very religious and very curious. Suspicion implies questioning with the idea that someone is trying to pull a fast one on you, or trying to get wool over your eyse. Curiosity as such is simple interest in what is. Inevitably, as one looks at things, one's perspective naturally changes and becomes wider and deeper. And according to the organizing premise one uses to look at that growing feild of information, experience, and understanding, one has integrity with reality to a greater or lesser degree.

My fundamental premise is "God IS" and "God is ALL." I gring to that premise many tools that I don't ordinarliy see used. So I seem to come up in some instances with dofferent conclusions than many who simply accept a ready made set of dogmas and doctrins, although, in fact, that is what I started with. And at this point, as far as I can tell, my view, both expereintially as far as it goes, and intellectually, as far as that goes, is in line wth my best understanding of a history of the conclusions of contemplatives, Catholic and not. There being one God, I'd predicate that there can be only one conclusion, independent of faith or lack of it.

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolphus WC

You can't consider one person without considering the others. They are 3 they are 1.

God's (all three persons) nature is that He can't be diminished.

If you are only willing to consider God as Everything, then you are correct: There is no sacrifice in Everything. However, if one limits God as only being everything, isn't this reducing God down to pantheism?
Please recognize that Catholicism is able to consider one person without considering the others: The Son prayed to the Father; The Holy Spirit will be sent by the Father, in the Son's name.

Quote:

How are they sacrifices of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit isn't lessened with each of their deaths.

Please consider the following: If we didn't consider one of their deaths/sacrifices, we would not have the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

You were saying we have a "good" spirit and a "bad" spirit. We don't. Just one. We can choose the path we take.

I am saying although each of us only has one spirit, that one spirit can either act in oneness with the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit. So would you please reconsider the questions: What is the one spirit we are of? Is being of one spirit, the same as being one with the spirit? Is being one with the spirit the same as being the spirit?

Quote:

The world as we know it is obliterated. A new world takes it's place.

Thank you for sharing. Please consider the following: Given the following:
-Apocalypse of Saint John can be interpreted as the destruction of the unholy spirit within John.
-The unholy spirit is worldliness, as opposed to Godliness.
Therefore, Apocalypse of Saint John can be interpreted as the destruction of worldliness within John.
-Worldliness can be stated more gracefully as of the World.
Which yields the following declaration: Destruction of the World.
-And when we destroy worldliness within ourselves, we get Godliness.
-Godliness can be interpreted as a temple of God, where a temple of God is heaven or a heavenly world.
Therefore, Apocalypse of Saint John and Revelation of Jesus Christ can be interpreted as the destruction of the world, for the new world of heaven within John.

Quote:

You are still focusing on Jesus as God. He is Truly Man then his emotions aren't faked. He was truly angry in the temple. Just as God the Father is wrathful.

This is another paradox of Faith: Jesus is True Man, yet He assumed a human nature. One can argue: If He assumed being of human nature, then He can't be True Man. Therefore, there must be a difference in being a man, and the nature of man.

Quote:

People reject Jesus all the time. People who physically met Jesus rejected Jesus. They killed him remember?

Please consider the following revision and concepts:
Jesus Love is so Amazing, that on a one on one relationship without peer and societal pressures, it is impossible to lose peace and happiness from receiving His Love.
Perhaps it is not that people reject Jesus, instead, they reject His ways. For example, when they asked Him to reveal His power by getting down from the cross, had He done so, do you think they would have rejected Him? The trouble is that in order to grant them the free-will to choose to Love as He Loves, so that He may also experience a limitless happiness in Heaven, He had to set us free from knowing He is God.

Thank you once again for your consideration. I look forward to more discussion.

Thoughts?

__________________
My intentions for sharing these understandings is to grow myself and others closer to God - The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and Catholicism, AND to subject these reflections to harsh criticisms regarding alignment with Catholicism, for it is the Truth.

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jochoa

If you are only willing to consider God as Everything, then you are correct: There is no sacrifice in Everything. However, if one limits God as only being everything, isn't this reducing God down to pantheism?
Please recognize that Catholicism is able to consider one person without considering the others: The Son prayed to the Father; The Holy Spirit will be sent by the Father, in the Son's name.

Please consider the following: If we didn't consider one of their deaths/sacrifices, we would not have the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

I am saying although each of us only has one spirit, that one spirit can either act in oneness with the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit. So would you please reconsider the questions: What is the one spirit we are of? Is being of one spirit, the same as being one with the spirit? Is being one with the spirit the same as being the spirit?

Thank you for sharing. Please consider the following: Given the following:
-Apocalypse of Saint John can be interpreted as the destruction of the unholy spirit within John.
-The unholy spirit is worldliness, as opposed to Godliness.
Therefore, Apocalypse of Saint John can be interpreted as the destruction of worldliness within John.
-Worldliness can be stated more gracefully as of the World.
Which yields the following declaration: Destruction of the World.
-And when we destroy worldliness within ourselves, we get Godliness.
-Godliness can be interpreted as a temple of God, where a temple of God is heaven or a heavenly world.
Therefore, Apocalypse of Saint John and Revelation of Jesus Christ can be interpreted as the destruction of the world, for the new world of heaven within John.

This is another paradox of Faith: Jesus is True Man, yet He assumed a human nature. One can argue: If He assumed being of human nature, then He can't be True Man. Therefore, there must be a difference in being a man, and the nature of man.

Please consider the following revision and concepts:
Jesus Love is so Amazing, that on a one on one relationship without peer and societal pressures, it is impossible to lose peace and happiness from receiving His Love.
Perhaps it is not that people reject Jesus, instead, they reject His ways. For example, when they asked Him to reveal His power by getting down from the cross, had He done so, do you think they would have rejected Him? The trouble is that in order to grant them the free-will to choose to Love as He Loves, so that He may also experience a limitless happiness in Heaven, He had to set us free from knowing He is God.

Thank you once again for your consideration. I look forward to more discussion.

Thoughts?

Yes, but in considering One we keep in mind that each One is all Three. The nature of God is He can't be diminished.

Their deaths are sacrifices of their one life. It isn't a sacrifice of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit isn't diminished by their deaths.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Quote:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Nothing is lost. There is only something to gain. It's not a sacrifice but rather an invitation.

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolphus WC

Their deaths are sacrifices of their one life. It isn't a sacrifice of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit isn't diminished by their deaths.

Please consider the following question: What is your understanding of the Holy Spirit?

__________________
My intentions for sharing these understandings is to grow myself and others closer to God - The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and Catholicism, AND to subject these reflections to harsh criticisms regarding alignment with Catholicism, for it is the Truth.

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

ARTICLE 8
"I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT"

687 "No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."7 Now God's Spirit, who reveals God, makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance, but the Spirit does not speak of himself. The Spirit who "has spoken through the prophets" makes us hear the Father's Word, but we do not hear the Spirit himself. We know him only in the movement by which he reveals the Word to us and disposes us to welcome him in faith. The Spirit of truth who "unveils" Christ to us "will not speak on his own."8 Such properly divine self-effacement explains why "the world cannot receive [him], because it neither sees him nor knows him," while those who believe in Christ know the Spirit because he dwells with them.9

Quote:

742 "Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!"' (Gal 4:6).

743 From the beginning to the end of time, whenever God sends his Son, he always sends his Spirit: their mission is conjoined and inseparable.

744 In the fullness of time the Holy Spirit completes in Mary all the preparations for Christ's coming among the People of God. By the action of the Holy Spirit in her, the Father gives the world Emmanuel "God-with-us" (Mt 1:23).

745 The Son of God was consecrated as Christ (Messiah) by the anointing of the Holy Spirit at his Incarnation (cf. Ps 2:6-7).

746 By his Death and his Resurrection, Jesus is constituted in glory as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 2:36). From his fullness, he poured out the Holy Spirit on the apostles and the Church.

747 The Holy Spirit, whom Christ the head pours out on his members, builds, animates, and sanctifies the Church. She is the sacrament of the Holy Trinity's communion with men.

Re: Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolphus WC

Quote:

Quote:
742 "Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!"' (Gal 4:6).

746 By his Death and his Resurrection, Jesus is constituted in glory as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 2:36). From his fullness, he poured out the Holy Spirit on the apostles and the Church.

747 The Holy Spirit, whom Christ the head pours out on his members, builds, animates, and sanctifies the Church. She is the sacrament of the Holy Trinity's communion with men.

Would you say that when a member of Christ is building, animating, sanctifying the Church, s/he is acting in oneness with the Holy Spirit?

__________________
My intentions for sharing these understandings is to grow myself and others closer to God - The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and Catholicism, AND to subject these reflections to harsh criticisms regarding alignment with Catholicism, for it is the Truth.